To be honest, if they choose wisely, I think the ban could be a good thing. How would you feed if tamandua's became the next fad pet to hit the big chain stores? Yes, the current pets should be grandfathered, but is it that bad that new ones may not be able to be kept as pets anymore? Do we really need to domesticate more wild animals to end up in our houses for our own entertainment?

I believe some animals do not belong as pets, chinchillas and sugar gliders do not make good pets because of their needs. Yeah there are a lot of people capable of meeting those needs, but for every good owner there are a hundred bad ones. Multimammate mice are totally unnecessary in the pet trade. And do we really need degus? Turtles like red-eared sliders too often are kept in a 10 gallon tank and then released into the wild when they get too big. If not being banned, something should be done so that they cost $100 instead of $20. Lots of reptile permits or something to discourage an impulse buy.

I truely think that hamsters and gerbils and such will be spared from this law, along with anything domesticated like rabbits and ferrets. I think there will also be far too many other pets that are spared from being banned when they should. Just my opinion though.

"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

What study did you get your statistics from?
With the numbers from pet abuse dot com and the numbers of pets estimated to be in the USA only .001% of exotics are abused while .009% of dogs are abused. If the ban were meant to stop abuse then why are dogs not banned first?

Even pretending your numbers were right one out over every 100 exotics treated well simplify to one out of 99 so we can say 99% are abused. You ban exotics and these abusers can now only own domestics. That's okay? Domestics aren't as important to save from abuse? But again those numbers are not even close to real. All people see is the bad because that is all they and the media choose to focus on. Someone fed their pet today and took good care of it simply is not news, no body cares, no one wants to hear it.

Less exotics are abused because they cost more and are harder to obtain while a domestic gets brushed off as just a dog and a dime a dozen, could get another free tomorrow from the paper. Barring typical pet store animals people have to do some searching to find the exotic of choice, which means they tend to learn at least a bit about care in the mean time too. They often require an investment of 100s-1000s of dollars. People are less inclined to just throw that money away by abusing the animal. Again based on actual reported numbers dogs are nine times as abused as exotics.

99.999% of exotic owners do not abuse their animals but need to be banned because .001% abuse their animals? If so then again why not ban dogs who are abuse nine time as much? If bans were to address abuse why not start with the most abused?

Laws certainly shouldn't be based on need, does anyone really need a dish washer? Do them by hand. Dogs and cats are not NEEDED either. Stop all animals as pets and make everyone go veg and then think of all the space and carbon we would save. Just because most people are happy with dogs and cats does not mean everyone has to be. No one needs fancy clothes we could all wear uniforms or make our own. No one really needs a freezer. We could save a lot of carbon if we banned freezers, which would force everyone to buy local or raise their own food. Why not, it's not needed, and a ban would provide a benefit?

As for release into the wild there are feral warrens of hundreds of rabbits that pose a serious problem that they just do not publicize. Rabbits are already on a national banned list they just do not enforce that one unless they find you have one of wild descent, that same lists bans mongooses and many others and those are enforced, because there is already a system in place to deal with invasive species.

The problem here is your opinion is that your opinion/morals should be law. Laws should not be based on morals. While you may think it is morally wrong to keep anything non-domestic some think it morally wrong for women to work. You show moral disgust at animals being kept for entertainment. Who cares what the reason for having the animal is so long as it is cared for properly? Is someone who rescues an animal from some situation only to neglect it somehow better than someone who buys one for the fun of it and takes good care of it? Simply not liking something or the reasons behind something is no reason for a ban on it. I do not like white pants. I hate seeing people in white pants.

Laws don't really prevent anything either. Prohibition of drugs, alcohol, the speed limit. Any law you can think of that has actually stopped the activity that was made illegal? So trying to ban all exotic owners because .001% of exotics are abused is not only unfair, and unconstitutional it also wont work. Might cut the numbers down. Laws punish, you get a ticket for going over the speed limit, you go to jail for dealing drugs. You get your animals taken away usually to be killed, you are finned and may face prison time, for owning a banned exotic, even if you were giving it great care. Laws are to punish what is considered a harmful acts(Murder, rape, speeding because you could kill someone). So where is the harm in owning an animal of any species?

Harmful if..
If released could be harmful, there are laws against releasing them, generally not enforced, so easier to ban. Ownership does not = resleased

Harmful if Abused, abuse and neglect is already illegal and even a felony some places. Still often not enforced but varies by area. Ownership does not = abuse

Danger factor, animal at large and public endangerment laws cover that. Also not often enforced. You have a 1 in 4 chance of dying in a car accident. No one really needs a care people lived without them at one time. Just owning a exotic or a car is not dangerous it is in how they are handled that could cause harm.

The problem is not a need for more laws we already have laws covering all of the problems. It is an enforcement issue and more laws will not fix that.

As for the actual intent of the bill, to prevent invasive species, each state already has their own laws in place as they see fit. California bans ferrets and gerbils already claiming they could be invasive. Agree or not it makes more sense than a national ban because a species could survive in one state.

This is also not just a pet ban law but an exotic animal ban on any level except for permits for scientific research and AZA zoos. AZA is a private group not a government license. If a private group can keep them that is run by human beings then there is no reason a private human being would not be able to do the same. Even sanctuaries aren't exempt.

Was a very good chance this would pass committee with a full third of the committee being cosponsors of the bill, means a third are guaranteed to vote yes.

Now this(though I don't know the original source)
Quote:
> Just got a call, as of right now, the committee on HR669 has gained enough
> people behind the proposal for it to come out and become a full bill on the
> floor.

We have ten days to send more letter! They discussed it today and the committee can ask questions of the witnesses and get answers back in writing. Call or fax and give them some more ideas to ask questions about.

You can watch the meeting here. Some have passed on notes that were taken and are planning to put them on a web page soon, but you can see for yourself if you have time.